Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Universes Will be Born from Ours

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the crisis-on-infinite-earths dept.

Space 440

David Shiga writes "What gruesome fate awaits our universe? Some physicists have argued that it is doomed to be ripped apart by runaway dark energy, while others think it is bouncing through an endless series of big bangs and big crunches. Now, scientists have combined these two ideas to create another option, in which our universe ultimately shatters into billions of pieces. Each shard would then subsequently grow into a whole new universe. The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."

cancel ×

440 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please... (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950360)

Now it sounds like these guys aren't even trying anymore. I could've sworn I saw this in an episode of Star Trek.

Re:Please... String Theory and Physics are Now Per (2, Interesting)

22RealMcCoy (864375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950682)


Cool pictures of the production at:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56 [physicsmathforums.com]

ALL TIED UP & STRUNG ALONG, a movie about String Theorists and their expansive theories which extend human ignorance, pomposity, and frailty into higher dimensions, is set to start filming this fall. Jessica Alba, John Cleese, Eugene Levie, Jackie Chan, and David Duchovney of X-files fame have all signed on to the $700 million Hollywood project, which is still cheaper than String Theory itself, and will likely displace less physicists from the academy.

"As contemporary physics is about money, hype, mythology, and chicks," Ed Witten explained from his offices at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, "The next logical step was Hollywood, although I thought Burt Reynolds should play me instead of Eugene Levy."

Brian Greene, the famous String Theorist who will be played by David "the truth is out there" Duchovney, explained the plot: "String theory's muddled, contorted theories that lack postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations have Einstein spinning so fast in his grave that it creates a black hole. In order to save the world, we String Theorists have to stop reformulating String Theory faster than the speed of light. We are called upon to stop violating the conservation of energy by mining higher dimensions to publish more BS than can accounted for with the Big Bang alone, and I win the Nobel prize for showing that M-Theory is in fact the dark matter it has been searching for."

Greene continues: "At first my character is reluctant to stop theorizing and start postulating, but when my love interest Jessica Alba is sucked into the black hole, I search my soul and find Paul Davies there, played by John Cleese. I ask him what he's doing in my soul, and he explains that the answer is contained in the mind of God, which only he is privy too, but for a small fee, some tax and tuition dollars, a couple grants here and there, and an all-expense-paid book tour with stops in Zurich and Honolulu, he can let me in on it. And he shows me God in all her greater glory, as he points out that we can make more money in Hollywood than writing coffee-table books that recycle Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, and Wheeler. I am quickly converted, and I agree to turn my back on String Theory's hoax and save Jessica Alba."

But it's not that easy, as standing in Greene's way is Michio "king of pop-theory-hipster-irony-the-theory-of-everything- or-anything-made-
you-read-this" Kaku, played by Jackie Chan. Kaku beats the crap out of Greene for alomst blowing the "ironic" pretense his salary, benefits, and all-expense paid trips depend on. "WE MUST HOLD BACK THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS WITH OUR NON-THEORIES!! WE MUST FILL THE ACADEMY WITH THE POMO DARK MATTER THAT IS STRING THEORY TO KEEP OUR UNIVERSE FROM FLYING APART, OUR PYRAMID SCHEMES FROM TOPPLING, AND OUR PERPETUAL-MOTION NSF MONEY MACHINE FROM STOPPING!!" Kaku argues as he delivers a flying back-kick, "There can be ony ONE! I WILL be String Theory's GODFATHER as referenced on my web page!! I have better hair!"

But Greene fights back as he signs his seventeenth book deal to make the hand-waving incoherence of String Theory accessible to the South Park generation, senior citizens, and starving chirldren around the world. "Kaku! Kaku! (pronounced Ka-Kaw! Ka-Kaw! like Owen Wilson did in Bottle Rocket)," Greene shouts. "It is theoretically impossible to build a coffee tables strong enough to support any more coffee-table physics books!!!"

"Time travel is also theoretically impossible, but there's a helluva lot more money for us in flushing physics down a wormhole. Nobody knows what the #&#%&$ M stands for in M theory ya hand-waving, TV-hogging crank!!! Get it?? Ha Ha Ha! We're laughing at the public! We're the insider pomo hipsters! Get with the gangsta-wanksta-pranksta CRANKSTER bling-bling program!!"

How does it all end? Does physics go bankrupt funding theories that have expanded our ignorance from four dimensions into ten, twenty, and thirty dimensions? Do tax payers revolt? Do young physicists overthrow the hand-waving, contortionist bullies and revive physics with a classical renaissance favoring logic, reason, and Truth over meaningless mathematical abstractions? Does Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) prevail with its simple postulate? We'll all just have to wait!

But in the meantime, how do you think it will play out?

Will theories with postulates ever be allowed in physics again? Or will the well-funded, tenured pomo String Theory / M-Theory (Maffia-Theory) Priests send their armies of desperate, snarky postdocs and starving graduate students forth to displace and destroy all common sense, logic, reason, and physics in the academy? It must be so--for the greater good of physics, the individual physicist, and thus physics, must be sacrificed.

MDT's postulate: THE FOURTH DIMENSION IS EXPANDING AT A RATE OF C RELATIVE TO THE THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN QUANTIZED UNITS OF THE PLANCK LENGTH, GIVING RISE TO TIME AND ALL CLASSICAL, QUANTUM MECHANICAL, AND RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENA.

Cool pictures at:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56 [physicsmathforums.com]

It is sad that physics has been taken over by hype (0, Troll)

22RealMcCoy (864375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950778)

Physics has become a postmodern joke.

While fanatsy and speculation and science fiction are funded with hundreds and millions, simple truth and beauty are glossed over.

But time is on the truth's side:

Moving Dimensions Theory: MDT
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. http://physicsmathforums.com/ [physicsmathforums.com]

Moving Dimensions Theory accounts for the aetherless aether.

This simple postulate offers a physical model underlying and unifiying:

RELATIVITY:

1) length contraction
2) time dilation
3) the equivalence of mass and energy
4) the constant velocity of light
5) the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source

QUANTUMN MECHANICS
1) action at a distance
2) wave-particle duality
3) interference phenomena
4) EPR paradox

THERMODYNAMICS
1) Time's arrow
2) Entropy

STRING THEORY'S MANY DIMENSIONS / KALUZA/KLEIN THEORY
1) a fourth expanding dimension can be interepreted as many dimensions, each time it expands

THE UNITY OF THE DUALITIES
1) wave/particle duality
2) time/space duality
3) energy/mass duality
4) E/B duality

GENERAL RELATIVITY
1) Gravitational redshift
2) Gravity waves
3) Gravitational attraction

THE SPACE-TIME BACKGROUND
1) quantum foam
2) the smearing of space and time at small distances
3) Hawking's imaginary time

PARADOXES
1) MDT explains away Godel's Block Universe
2) MDT unfreezes time
3) Resolves Zeno's Paradox

ONE GETS ALL OF THIS FROM A SIMPLE POSTULATE:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions in a sphereically symmetric manner, in units of the Planck length, at the rate of c.

This means that every point in three dimnesional space is always expanding into a fourth dimensional sphere with a radius of the plank length. A photon is matter caught on the surface of this quantized expansion, and thus energy is quantized. The expansion of the fourth dimension occurs at the rate of c, and thus the velocity of all photons is c.

Check out the t-shirt with a simple proof of MDT:

http://www.cafepress.com/autumnrangers.72464949 [cafepress.com]

"The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimenions."

How sad it is that when truth stares modern physicists in the face, they must close their eyes so as to get a postdoc or raise more funds for String Theory.

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all
experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor
Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies
formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

THE GENERAL POSTULATE
OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
-Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of
dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax
and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie
physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a
physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which
both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement,
gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light,
relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of
mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT.
-The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six
dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this
excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45
Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your
head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel
lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more
likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

MDT IN BRIEF
Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of
MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account
for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be
elaborated on throughout the book.

Questions Addressed by MDT:

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the
source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to
the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding
fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the
photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the
fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the
source.

Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding
in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light
and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding
dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy
are thus quantized.

Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an
emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time
is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all
biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and
propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light
is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked
to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of
light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the
same.

How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The
fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the
fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding
dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the
three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the
photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension
and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it
appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a
grain on a photographic plate.

How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The
fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually
being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by
the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the
electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up
the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the
expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object,
the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth
dimension, and thus it moves.

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That
means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere
with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire
spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in
time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the
EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½
photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite
directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too,
they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding
dimension.

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons
are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is
an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an
oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object
approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without
reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light
cannot emit a photon.

How come a photon does not age?
A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth
expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth
dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same
place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the
fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is
because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a
rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the
three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more
photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the
expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as
perceived from the three spatial dimensions.

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table
stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet
moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence
every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2.
In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth
dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating
at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence
every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner.
Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons,
is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically
symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming
pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never
reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at
a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny
packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension,
appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity
c.

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the
space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the
velocity of light.

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the
speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of
physics are the same in all inertial frames.

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?
Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum
mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's
laws.

Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in
length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity
are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles
can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy
component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity
and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never
changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to
move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons
prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the
greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the
fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the
shorter it appears, and the faster it moves.

How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

"The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling;
either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most
working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." -
Abner Shimony and John Clauser

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The
vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string
theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute
questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years,
have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists,
such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that
physics need news ideas.
The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of
quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The
expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of
quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the
exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new
concept of space-time.

http://physicsmathforums.com/ [physicsmathforums.com]

New Universe Born For: +1, Helpful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951042)


The thieves [whitehouse.org] who stole U.S. $ 12 billion allegedly shipped to Iraq.

I hope this helps the criminal investigation.

Yours patriotically,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

Re:Please... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951554)

Seriously. Like, take this for example:

"The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."

One single, three-letter word is all we need to answer this question, no models necessary: "GOD."

I don't understand why we need to make up so many other ideas. "Well, it just happened over and over and over again till by some cosmic accident, the Universe actually all fell into place just right to prododuce us." That's like saying a tornado blew through a junkyard on a billion different instances and somehow managed to assemble an airplane that needed just fuel and oil or whatever to be able to take off and fly, in one out of a billion times. It's just not plausable. Basically all this theory says to me is "Ok, so one in a billion wasn't plausible enough, how about one in three trillion?" It's still a no. How much less blind belief, how much more logical is it to just say somebody built the friggin plane?! Or that Something built the Universe and all its order. God Bless. /end rant.

Re:Please... (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951638)

It used to be that metaphysicians were physicists with a massive inferiority complex. But now it seems that the physicists have decided to become metaphysicians. It would be as if all of a sudden all other engineering students decided they would like nothing other than to become Civil Engineers. Sound likely to you? Me either.

I, for one... (-1, Redundant)

Mizled (1000175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950366)

I, for one, Welcome our new universe shattering overlords...

Re:I, for one... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950434)

I heard Google is still beta testing them out.

Re:I, for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950752)

I, for one, am frightened that the universe might have evolve life, but might never bear a Jesus or Mohammed. :(

I was going to write something insightful . . . (3, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950376)

. . . witty, and profound, but the announcement that the free bagels and donuts we get every Friday have arrived.

Just think, if only one percent of those billions of new universes repeat our time-stream, this joyous moment will be repeated . . .

whoa, they maple bars this morning. I'm out of here. Priorities . . .

What a coincidence! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950608)

I maple bar in the morning too!

(Heh. Captcha is "imminent.")

I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better.... (5, Interesting)

Slagged (985600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950396)

Brilliant analogy (1)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950802)

One of the best sci-fi stories ever. Kudos for the link.

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (-1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950830)

Best. Short. Story. Evar.

And AC said "Let there be light".
And there was light.

And, given the Anthropic principle [wikipedia.org] , probably not all that far from the truth.

DO NOT READ PARENT, CONTAINS SPOILER!!! (2, Informative)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950944)

Nice way to ruin it for the unitiated.

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (1)

slipperman (737810) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950880)

That is one of my favorite all time stories.. thanks for posting, I havent read it in years.

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (2, Insightful)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951072)

I was told that story by a friend. Quite interesting. It was the shortened version (as in a 5 minute telling), but I think I got everything.

I do wonder though: How did the very first one occur? If this universe is from the last one, then there must have been a first one somewhere.

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (1, Interesting)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951128)

Maybe the first one IS the last one. You may scoff at the notion. But does the Earth have a beginning and an end?

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951322)

If the light and heavy elements from the remnants of a nova coalesced at some time into the planet we live on now, then it might reasonably be said to have a beginning. Which is pretty deep.

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951278)

But he is wrong in the essay...

Asimov writes:
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
100% incorrect. Stars are born right now that will last billions of years longer than the sun. Stars don't die out all at the same time.

Re:I like Isaac Asimov 's interpretation better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951308)

Stars are born right now that will last billions of years longer than the sun. Stars don't die out all at the same time.

But he said forever.

Black Hole Suck (3, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950400)

... is there something somewhere else blowing?

And no, that wasn't a Spaceballs reference!

Re:Black Hole Suck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950488)

is there something somewhere else blowing?

Yeah, your mom is blowing.

Just STFU

Re:Black Hole Suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950748)

no, you STFU, bitch.

Re:Black Hole Suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951230)

yes, they are called stars.

I thought we went through this before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950402)

Are we back to the Steady State Theory [wikipedia.org] already?

Re:I thought we went through this before... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951254)

No. Hoyle's Steady State Theory presumed that the universe would always look about the same from about anywhere. This theory has definite cycles, even though the details aren't repetitive.

Hoyle's theory postulated that hydrogen atoms appeared in the gaps between galaxies at just sufficient rate to keep the universal density constant. That was consistent with what was known at the time, but even Hoyle gave it up in the face of evidence for the Big Bang. This theory is very different.

OTOH, variations of this theory have come up before, and there's always something been found wrong with them. This one claims to solve those problems. Does it? I'm not a physicist, much less a cosmologist.

Re:I thought we went through this before... (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951384)

This theory really is a Big Bang theory, analogous to the "cyclic" Big Bang theories in which new Bangs happen over and over. The Steady State theory claimed that there was just one universe, which is eternal and is always the same in space and time. (So, to explain why the density of the universe doesn't decrease as it expands, they had to postulate that new matter is continuously created to "fill in the gaps".)

My universe was ripped apart..... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950404)

... when my woman left me.

Baby come back!! No more dark matter - I promise you a Big Bang this time!

Bah humbug (5, Funny)

Fist! Of! Death! (1038822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950406)

I propose that the universe is actually a cheap science kit awaiting purchase on the shelf of a hyper-dimensional Toys-R-Us. I could probably prove it too if I had the funding...

Re:Bah humbug (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951194)

3.02 A thought contains the possibility of the situation of which it is the thought. What is thinkable is possible too.
Lugwig Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [uni-heidelberg.de]

The question is how to let thoughts seem to be reality, though.

CC.

as is says in prophecy... (0, Flamebait)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950426)

Rev 21:1, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth and the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."

Re:as is says in prophecy... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950578)

Gotta love the men who thought the earth was flat.

Re:as is says in prophecy... (2, Informative)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950680)

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...

Re:as is says in prophecy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950810)

Circles are flat, genius.

Re:as is says in prophecy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950870)

so what shape is a ball?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circle [reference.com]
24 results for: circle
16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

Re:as is says in prophecy... (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950860)

Too vague a dinner plate is a circle from a particular vantage. As is a sphere from any vantage. As is a cylinder from a particular vantage. Thus, I declare that the earth is really a cylinder of unknown depth as it realigns itself at the speed of thought to always remain at the circle-appearing perspective to the observer.

Re:as is says in prophecy... (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950916)

So, which of the many versions of the bible has these exact words?

I always found it funny that the word of god has different versions...I mean, I would think god would make himself quite clear in what he means if it is so important that we follow what he says...

Who are we, petty little humans, to judge what god does and does not mean and want?

Judge not lest ye be judged mother fucker.

Re:as is says in prophecy... (1)

beyowulf (1014741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951584)

I always found it funny that the word of god has different versions...I mean, I would think god would make himself quite clear in what he means if it is so important that we follow what he says...
When you versions, read translations. Unless you can read the original hebrew, greek, and aramaic. But then again, not many do. What I don't understand, is why people tend to quote a translation that was done a few centuries, and doesn't account for the fact that 'thee' and 'thou' has fallen out of common usage.

Spaghetti Flying Monster (-1, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950472)

Atheists routinely making fun of believers by invoking SFM analogy. I just read "scientific" ./ article that is more qualified for calling that analogy.

Re:Spaghetti Flying Monster (1)

MayonakaHa (562348) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950556)

Yeah those guys over at Dotslash are ALWAYS posting all kinds of wild theories.

Re:Spaghetti Flying Monster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950716)

Yeah, except this claim is apparently testable. You know, testing an idea to see whether it actually works? That thing religions can't do?

From the article:
"The theory will be put to the test when the European Space Agency's Planck satellite is launched in July 2008. The satellite will measure properties related to the pressure and density of dark energy that will distinguish the new model from the standard big bang picture, says Frampton."

Re:Spaghetti Flying Monster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950794)

Dyslexic much?

Spaghetti Flying Monster = Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSM

./ = /. or Slashdot

Re:Spaghetti Flying Monster (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951188)

Scientific article is not a scientific paper. IT was a very high level description of a model written by somebody who might no what there doing, but probably doesn't.

IT is just a model, when they lok at it closer they will find that it doesn't account for some thing and discard it, or they will be able to use it to make predection, it which case it won't be discarded unless something better comes along.

FSM is a modern day version of the teapot analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot [wikipedia.org]

Quick... (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950476)

The universe is ending, get to the beer store before it closes! Actually, this theory may be in fact true, however it falls under the category of one that can never be proven fully because the universe has to end to really find out if the models were correct. You can tweak models. Reality is a little different. Sounds like a good experiment for the new satellite, or at the very least, a good source of grant money for the researchers.

Re:Quick... (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951050)

It just has to be falsifiable. A well-constructed theory depends on several factors. Disprove one, and at least parts of the theory are no longer valid.

Another Option? (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950524)

Some physicists have argued that it is doomed to be ripped apart by runaway dark energy, while others think it is bouncing through an endless series of big bangs and big crunches. Now, scientists have combined these two ideas to create another option

Big energy and runaway bangs with Dark Crunches? Sounds like a cereal to me.

this iS goatsex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950540)

cuurent core were most people into a of challenges that they started to visit

Mystery (1, Funny)

BamaRob (132795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950564)

The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered.
It's no mystery... God made it that way.

Re:Mystery (0)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950784)

How is it flamebait if someone even mentions God?...the statement was made in a very tasteful way and it is simply the poster's opinion. I know *most* everyone on Slashdot doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense but Intelligent Design is as good a theory as any...If you were really thinking scientifically you would take all theories into account and not dismiss others because of how ridiculous it is solely based on the majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community used to believe the Earth was flat, you couldn't split an atom, among so many other things. Science is not infallible /rant

Re:Mystery (1)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950950)

Because, it was stated as fact. Religion != fact. Nor are scientific theories.

Re:Mystery (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951016)

Intelligent Design is not as good a theory as any, as you say, unless you think theory means "gosh all this science is hard stuff! Let's throw up our hands in reverent awe and say that some unknowable entity poofed us into existence. Alright, time for lunch."

Re:Mystery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951232)

yeah...funny though because the chances of the universe coming together perfectly to support cognitive human life is so remote that its more intellegent to assume intellegent design. theres limitless factors that support that...

Re:Mystery (2, Informative)

ardor (673957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951018)

ID does not qualify as a scientific theory because of including God as a factor. God, however, cannot be probed. No one can prove or disprove God, essentially turning God into a joker. "Hmm... there was the Cambrian Explosion... oh - I know, God did it!" Since god is a non-verifiable entity, it has no place in science. For the same reason, some scientists are starting to dismiss String Theory (there is currently no way to verify it).

Re:Mystery (1)

pnaro (78663) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951388)

Yes. The one with the stripper factory and beer volcanoes in heaven.

..I go on forever. (1)

Cragen (697038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950580)

"And out again I curve and flow

To join the brimming river,
For men may come and men may go,
But I go on forever."

from THE BROOK ,
by: Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892
http://www.poetry-archive.com/t/the_brook.html [poetry-archive.com]

Cragen

Re:..I go on forever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950672)

We'll see what that damn brook has to say after some more global warming eliminates its source glacier.

Re:..I go on forever. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950872)

What a lovely pram. Let's all thank Lord Tennis-ball.

Tennyson!

Excuse me, Lord Tennis-ball's son.

for the future! (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950586)

Can we leave them our debts?

DJCC

Hopefully (4, Funny)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950592)

We'll stick around to stay in our little galaxy's lives, as we want to pass on our knowledge and provide care for them. That and the threat of paying child support.

Don't you worry citizens! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950630)

http://www.goatse.cz/ [goatse.cz] -- The Big Rip is here to rescue j00r univoors!!1!11!!!

Re:Don't you worry citizens! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951102)

Troll or not, I laughed.

Oh my GOD we are all going to DIE! (-1, Offtopic)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950640)

The universe is no longer in a steady state! Our use of cars and oil have unbalanced the delicate system and not only are we destroying the planet, we are causing the universe to come apart at the seams. We must stop using oil, cars, energy, and anything else we invent and let the universe heal itself.

Sound crazy?

No more crazy than global warming

Re:Oh my GOD we are all going to DIE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17950772)

Brilliant

Can I ask, who ties your shoelaces in the morning?

Possible (5, Interesting)

styryx (952942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950644)

There has been a lot of research showing that Black Holes themselves are essentially fundamental particles. Coupled with (even if string theory isn't true the fundamental particle geometry is interesting) two concepts of measuring distance. Such that when one passes the Plank Length the 'easy' way of measuring distance becomes hard and measures the reciprocal instead, while the previous hard way becomes easy. Then throw into all of this the notion that we are all moving through space-time at constant velocity (light speed - this is why when you travel faster through space time slows down. so no-one really understands what time is, or how many dimensions (of 11, say) are time, or whether they are essentially different from space, mathematically, physically or philosophically.

So yeah, i'm just about willing to believe anything right now.

The Hobo-verse (5, Funny)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950650)

Prominent bizarro physicists believe the new universe will be inverse of our own, controlled by the indigent, and known as the hobo-verse. This new hobo-verse will be controlled by a singular omnipotent box car hobo named "Klackity Klack." Also, it will smell like pee.

Was there "time" before 15-20 Billion years ago? (1)

ScnGuy (1060720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950690)

So, it sounds like they are postulating that this universe could be the product of another "big rip" (or capital "B" and "R": "Big Rip?"). Sounds possible -- so, this could have gone on for quite a while, no? The "Big Bang" could have been a "Biggish Bang number 42" or some such, with other universes way out there, and farther out than we would ever be able to observe directly.

Personally, I always felt there had to be something beyond the end of the universe. On the other hand, there has to be an end, so we have a paradox that I really don't think has been explored (except, maybe, in Star Trek...)

Evidence (3, Interesting)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950704)

I'm a physics teacher currently teaching about the Big Bang and possible ends of the Universe. I'm just wondering if there are any research physicists in the room who could tell me which theory of the end of the Universe has the most physical evidence to support it at the current time.

Thank you,

-CGP [colingregorypalmer.net]

Re:Evidence (4, Informative)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950868)

Right now, the theory with the most evidence in its favor is the theory which includes a dark energy described by Einstein's cosmological constant. In that theory, the universe's expansion will continue to accelerate forever, although not at such a great rate that there is a "Big Rip" which tears atoms apart. That is the "heat death" scenario, in which the universe lasts forever and runs down until nothing much is going on. Because of the accelerating expansion, we will see fewer and fewer distant galaxies as time goes on, because they will accelerate away from us faster than light can reach us. Ultimately we will only see a few local galaxies in the cluster in which we are bound.

This scenario is explored in more detail here [ucr.edu] .

However, it's possible that the dark energy is dynamical instead of constant, and so the expansion of the universe could accelerate or possibly even reverse and decelerate. With enough deceleration, a Big Crunch is still feasible. There are also the scenarios in which our universe spawns new "universes", such as the one discussed here.

Re:Evidence (1)

Intangible Fact (1001781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951062)

From what I read is that the universe was born from a singularity. Compression of all matter must occur for a sigularity to take place. Now what I find intriguing is that black holes, from what scientist have gathered, vacuum up any and everything including light. Now lets say that everything being sucked into a black is being compressed into a singularity. This can mean that multiple universe can be created from black holes.

Re:Evidence (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950982)

I'm not a research physicist, but of the two more prominent competing theories -- pulsating and ever-expanding -- the latter I believe has more support. There is evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this is attributed to the presence of "dark energy."

opinion (1)

boobavon (857902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950714)

well ordered is a matter of opinion. let's not base theories of creation off of slippery ones like that ;)

Why is the universe {insert idea here}? (3, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950720)

You frequently get the question "Why is the universe {whatever}?" or "In order to support human life, the universe had to be {whatever}."

This is frequently used to support the idea of divine intervention.

If you ask such a question or make such an observation, you have to remember:

The fact that we are here to observe it greatly restricts the possibilities, so what seems like "long odds" isn't long odds after all.

To put it another way:
If you play in the Superbowl and win, and your friends congratulate you, you don't say "What are the odds of my friends congratulating me for winning the Superbowl? There are 300,000,000 million Americans and only a few dozen have friends who congratulated them for winning the 2007 Super Bowl. That is rare, this is proof of divine intervention in my life."

Re:Why is the universe {insert idea here}? (1)

resonte (900899) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951030)

Exactly. Considering that it's impossible to experience non-existence. Then the argument "our existence is highly improbably, therefore God created us" becomse highly absurd. We are experiencing this universe because the other uncountable Universes that exist can't support life, and stable physics.

Re:Why is the universe {insert idea here}? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951040)

"
The fact that we are here to observe it greatly restricts the possibilities, so what seems like "long odds" isn't long odds after all."

actually it was extremly long odds over a very long time.

The fact that it happened doesn't mean ther odd were long.
If you have a 1 in 80,000,000 chance of getting the winning lottery numbers and you get them, your odds were still 1 in 80,000,000.

i'm so sick of the big bang (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950736)

and all other high-level alternative cosmological theories

it's nothing but mythology with a veneer of high level math that supposes to give it respectability. it doesn't. its entertianing and creative, but ultimately proofless. a lot of the big bang, the expanding universe, etc., can be explained with simple local variation in time/ space

i'm sorry but string theory, other high level theories of everything: in my mind they are as convincing as peter pan or lord of the rings or harry potter. very entertaining, but ultimately just tall tales

the only people who have a convincing cosmology/ creation theory to me is from the jains, the ancient religious sect in india, and they figured it out thousands of years ago:

the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. it's constant. any variation we see around us is not proof of the big bang, but merely large scale contraction and expansion in endless variety like the surface of the sea

to me, that is the ultimate truth, because in my mind, all other creation theories, with their shocking plot twists and incendiary catalclysms, stinks of the very human need to create meaning where there isn't necessarily any meaning, to create drama where nothing says there needs to be drama, to impart deeply rooted biological impressions of birth and death, on a scale that has no such indications

in other words, the most profound truth is also the most mundane

Re:i'm so sick of the big bang (1)

ashtophoenix (929197) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950912)

I really have to point out to you that the theory of the universe is constant was "NOT" created by Jains. Jains branched off Hindus and the vedas (and later the upanishads), all date well before Jainism started. And there are the things that you mention as well as more already there since the Vedic era and later in the upanishads too, and then of course in the Gita that takes all these things, assimillates them and adds on to them its own concepts too.

Re:i'm so sick of the big bang (2, Insightful)

ardor (673957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950934)

Sigh...

Its not mythology.

Explain to me the cosmic background radiation, the galaxy redshift, the decrease of the alpha constant... the big bang theory has explanations for these.

You are yet another one of the persons who falsely believe that science deals with truths. Guess what: SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH TRUTHS. It deals with MODELS, called "theories". No one claims that the big bang is "the truth". It is the best thing we have, however, since it explains most phenomena. Your jain stuff has to be verifiable AND be a) simpler than the big bang theory and/or b) cover phenomena not explained by it, then it could be considered a valid theory.

explanation (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951200)

local variation in expansion/ contraction, like the surface of a choppy windy day on the open ocean, on a tremendous scale

Re:i'm so sick of the big bang (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950984)

Then why is it expanding?

why it is expanding: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951248)

it's just local variation in expansion/ contraction, like the surface of a choppy windy day on the open ocean, but on an extremely huge scale of time and space

Alien language (4, Funny)

isomeme (177414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950894)

Each shard would then subsequently growing into a whole new universe.

...with its own new laws of physics and grammar.

The paper (4, Informative)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950906)

I think the work being referred to may be in this paper [arxiv.org] , in which the universes are "causal patches" which are disconnected from each other causally by the Big Rip.

An exponential run off of Infinity (1)

resonte (900899) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950936)

So the Universe is an exponential recursive function? But, still doesn't explain how the function was first initiated though and "God did it" is not a sufficient answer.

Existence is such an strange thing, guess I'll find out when I die.

Shards... (1)

MatrixCubed (583402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950942)

The reasoning behind the shattering is due to the visitation of a Stranger from another land, heeding the call of Lord British. The Stranger overcame many perils, finally meeting the evil Mondain in single combat, and shattering the Gem of Immortality into a million shards of which we now speak.

Since this time, these myriad shards have been visited by other similar life forms, where they pay exhorbitant fees to engage in lewd behavior, server lag, and PKing.

Engrish? (3, Funny)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17950976)

Each shard would then subsequently growing into a whole new universe.
Is this some newfangled way to form a sentence I have not heard of before?

Creation vs Big Bang (2, Funny)

z80kid (711852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951094)

I've got an idea that satisfies both Creation and Big Bang.

I call it the "Big Burrito" theory.

Details forthcoming after lunch....

Re:Creation vs Big Bang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951616)

Does this first involve a crunch followed by a gaseous bang?

yeah.. (2, Interesting)

40ozFreak (823002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951120)

The idea is called Kabbalah. It's nothing new.

Well-ordered? (4, Insightful)

g_adams27 (581237) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951250)

> The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered.

Not really - you've just pushed the problem back one level. Where did the well-ordered universe shards that made this universe come from? It can't be "turtles all the way down"

Welcome to Sosaria... (1)

EchoD (1031614) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951258)

...and Richard Garriot will become king, and his kingdom will be named Britannia, and his world will be called Sosaria. Hi, I'm a priest of the Temple of Mondain.

Universe[s]??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17951316)

From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

    universe
              n 1: everything that exists anywhere;

Could someone please explain how you would have multiple copies of something that "exists everywhere?"

Depends on what your definition of a universe is (4, Interesting)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951320)

If you define a different universe as being physically distinct from ours, then yes;
If parts of our universe started out in the same singularity as us but are now outside of our light-cone, then they are in effect physically separate from us, so that places them in a different universe, doesn't it? If they are outside our light-cone, and can no longer affect us, then they are not in our universe anymore but since they still exist, I think you have to consider them as being in a different universe.
Of course it means they have to be outside of our entire universe's light-cone...

Newborn universes (1)

Dannon (142147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951376)

Baby universes? Let's name one "Bob"!

What, our universe gives its life up so another can be born, and we don't even get to name it?

Always Something (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951428)

There is always a runaway something that will kill us all.

a poem by Carlos Castaneda: (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951458)


Syntax

A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements of facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.

The Other Syntax

Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound like they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
That's the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going now, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.

The size of the Universe is constant. (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951488)

The amplitude of the strings (which make up the fundamental particles, which make up the matter and energy in the universe) is decreasing. The Universe is maintaining a constant size; however, the particles within that Universe are shrinking, giving us the illusion that the Universe is expanding.

When the energy state of all strings is zero, the Universe will be empty. No big crunch. No big rip. Just heat-death. I'm so certain of it, I'll bet my paycheck on it - but good luck collecting on the bet!

Is any of this stuff testable? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951536)

All this string theory parallel universe type of crap?

If it's not, it's really just philosophy. The universe could be made up of interdimensional farts. Whatever.

Is there an actual field of science that tries to quantify and observe this stuff, or is it just people sitting around going "DUUUUUDE... like, what if the universe explodes into A MILLION UNIVERSES!"

I guess the title pHd make your daydreams more important than those of any other stoner.

wow, i hope your woman gets back with you (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951592)

feeling a little bitter about something?

the universe is fun place. To quote David Holmes, "Don't Die Just Yet!"

Jump into the box (1)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17951610)

What fate awaits... maybe Leprechaun Universe or Pirate Universe.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>